Late Wednesday evening, the United States Court of Federal Claims granted SpaceX’s request for an injunction to prevent US-based companies from buying RD-180 rocket engines for use in government space launches. The injunction specifically applies against the United Launch Alliance (ULA), a joint venture between Boeing and Lockheed-Martin that provides unmanned rocket launch services to NASA and other US government agencies (the injunction’s full text is available here).

At a press conference last week, SpaceX CEO and founder Elon Musk accused the United States government of entering into improper and uncompeted launch agreements with private contractors that in turn are purchasing rocket engines from Russia. Musk feels that SpaceX’s rockets can do the same job at a far lower cost but that the launch contracts were simply awarded to the ULA without SpaceX being given the opportunity to prove its capabilities. "We’re just protesting and saying these launches should be competed," said Musk at the press conference. "And if we compete and lose, that’s fine, but why were they not even competed?"

Wednesday’s injunction comes in response to a complaint filed by SpaceX on April 28, wherein the company's lawyers formalized Musk’s complaints and requested that the government intervene. The complaint goes further, stating not only that the launches were unfairly "sole sourced" (that is, granted to a single company without giving others the opportunity to bid on or compete for the work) but also raising concerns about the source of the rocket engines used for many of the launches:

The April 28, 2014 Complaint alleges that the majority of EELV launch vehicles use RD-180 rocket engines manufactured by NPO Energomash, a corporation owned and controlled by the Russian Government. Dmitry Rogozin, the Deputy Prime Minister of Russia, is the head of the Russian defense industry and, in particular, the Russian space program.

The ULA mainly operates two different launch vehicles under the banner of the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle program: Delta IV and Atlas V. The Atlas V rocket uses the Russian RP-1 powered RD-180 engines in its first stage, while the Delta IV’s first stage uses US-built cryogenic RS-68 engines (which are far less powerful but more efficient).

Because of the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict, Rogozin is currently listed on a "Specifically Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List." Further, in March 2014, President Obama issued Executive Order 13,661, which declares in part that "all property and interests [of Deputy Prime Minister Rogozin]…are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in." Because Rogozin is the head of the Russian space program, the complaint argues, he potentially benefits financially from the ULA’s engine purchases.

The injunction is effective immediately and prohibits the ULA from conducting any additional business with NPO Energomash or any other entity under the control of Rogozin "unless and until the court receives the opinion of the United States Department of the Treasury, and the United States Department of Commerce and United States Department of State, that any such purchases or payments will not directly or indirectly contravene Executive Order 13,661."

After the sanctions of Executive Order 13,661 were announced, Rogozin snidely commented via Twitter, "After analysing the sanctions against our space industry I suggest the US delivers its astronauts to the ISS with a trampoline."

Lee Hutchinson
Lee is the Senior Technology Editor at Ars and oversees gadget, automotive, IT, and culture content. He also knows stuff about enterprise storage, security, and manned space flight. Lee is based in Houston, TX. Emaillee.hutchinson@arstechnica.com

124 Reader Comments

Readers may want to look into the X-33, which was part of the shuttle replacement program. Oh, and which president cancelled it.

It was canceled because the fuel tank design (which carried liquid hydrogen) repeatedly failed. NASA determined that the technology available to them at the time simply could not support what was required for the X33 SSTO.

Whatever president was sitting at the time - the basics of the design were obviously flawed - I see no problem with the president of the time, or the NASA administration, or whomever cancelling it.

Lockheed didn't get a successful test until 2009 - and that only with a scale model.

Trust me, if the X-33 program was in run in Texas, it would not have been cancelled. Investigate further, and you will find a vindictive scorched earth policy was pursued, including that the launch site be sold.

On the other hand, this is venturing into dangerous territory. It's one thing to sue for the right to compete for government contracts, it's another thing entirely to use the courts to bludgeon your competition.

If they're not allowed to compete, what competition are they bludgeoning?

They're not an incumbent using the courts to obstruct some upstart trying to gain traction. They're the upstart. ULA has a lot more lawyers, and the established position, connections, and political support. SpaceX can only try this because they've actually got an extremely good argument that they've been wronged.

Readers may want to look into the X-33, which was part of the shuttle replacement program. Oh, and which president cancelled it.

It was canceled because the fuel tank design (which carried liquid hydrogen) repeatedly failed. NASA determined that the technology available to them at the time simply could not support what was required for the X33 SSTO.

Whatever president was sitting at the time - the basics of the design were obviously flawed - I see no problem with the president of the time, or the NASA administration, or whomever cancelling it.

Lockheed didn't get a successful test until 2009 - and that only with a scale model.

It's going to be at least twenty years, based on current SOTA, to get to the point where the composite tank will be strong enough, light enough, affordable enough, and reusable enough based on the work done on the X-33.

For short-sighted and dubious reasons, the United States gave up its capability to launch astronauts into space in exchange for a contract with the Russians to do so. Now the chickens come home to roost. We have sown stupidity and now we get to reap the same. To paraphrase the Knight Templar guarding the "Holy Grail" in the Indiana Jones movie: "We chose unwisely."

Take some of the misspent, or soon to be misspent, billions from the F-22 and F-35 fighter programs and transfer them to our space program and its commercial partners like SpaceX. Right now we should be starting on a crash program to get our astronauts to orbit with our own equipment and commercial partners, without having to depend on Russia or China for anything.

We can still have a space program of our own...if we really want one.

America used to have balls, we just need to remember where we left them.

You know, maybe this will push LockMart to finally put the RD-180 into domestic production, like they've had the license to do for years.

Nah, they'll just get the politicians in their pocket to forge another exemption.

LockMart would want money from the Congress to do that, of course. Alot will depend on how many RD-180's they have on hand - as you can't just "build" RD-180's you've never built before - and have them be successful - the Atlas 5 is the backbone of the governmental launch fleet (the Delta 4 is used for the really heavy launches for the most part - they strap 3 of them together).

Easily they could transition to the Delta 4, but you'd need time, just as you would to start making RD-180's domestically.

If LockMart doesn't have alot of RD-180's on hand - there's going to be alot of running around and waving of hands in the halls of D.C. today.

Before you all complain too loudly about SpaceX's complaining, understand that SpaceX can put satellites up for about one-third the cost of the ULA flights. And, they launch from Florida, rather than the Russian-leased facility at Baikonur. The ULA is everything most people don't like about government contracts: sole-sourcing and massive insider influence.

Side story - doing business in Kazakhstan is "different". A good friend who manages aspects of these ULA launches tells me they've had to bribe the air traffic controllers at Baikonur tens of thousands of dollars to land their cargo. This happens while the plane is circling, waiting for clearance. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

Before you all complain too loudly about SpaceX's complaining, understand that SpaceX can put satellites up for about one-third the cost of the ULA flights. And, they launch from Florida, rather than the Russian-leased facility at Baikonur. The ULA is everything most people don't like about government contracts: sole-sourcing and massive insider influence.

Side story - doing business in Kazakhstan is "different". A good friend who manages aspects of these ULA launches tells me they've had to bribe the air traffic controllers at Baikonur tens of thousands of dollars to land their cargo. This happens while the plane is circling, waiting for clearance. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

Just for clarification. We launch our Space Station astronauts from Baikonur (Kazakhstan) on a Russian rocket & spacecraft, the unmanned ULA vehicles (Atlast 5 and Delta 4) launch from Cape Canaveral and Vandenberg - its just that the Atlas 5 uses Russian engines.

I think I read that Russia was building a replacement space launch facility within their borders (probably for some of those reasons you listed with regards to Kazakhstan).

There is almost always unintended consequences on every decision made. The US government decided to discontinue the Space Shuttle before we had a replacement. Now the US has to depend upon the Russians to send or astronauts to the ISS. Boeing and L M should be ashamed to buy from Russia rocket motors to do their launch. Space X has been able to produce a rocket motor at a much lower cost than the Russian rocket that Boeing and L M. Does that indicate that the Russians have out engineered these two power houses of engineering? That would be bad enough but now to be showed up a new comer Space X . . . If the Russian space industry have sanctions against it then these purchases should to be allow to go forward.

Before you all complain too loudly about SpaceX's complaining, understand that SpaceX can put satellites up for about one-third the cost of the ULA flights. And, they launch from Florida, rather than the Russian-leased facility at Baikonur. The ULA is everything most people don't like about government contracts: sole-sourcing and massive insider influence.

Side story - doing business in Kazakhstan is "different". A good friend who manages aspects of these ULA launches tells me they've had to bribe the air traffic controllers at Baikonur tens of thousands of dollars to land their cargo. This happens while the plane is circling, waiting for clearance. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

They still have to prove they can do it reliable, which given time I am sure they will do, but right now they still don't have a finished, tested, product - and certainly not one that is close to being human rated.

America used to have balls, we just need to remember where we left them.

In the hand's of the South African, Musk?

If you don't think that SpaceX will be another Lockheed Martin in 10 years, sucking down taxpayer money, I have a bridge I will sell you.

If the military follows in NASA's (occasionally faltering, mostly thanks to Congress) footsteps of moving away from non- or minimally-competitive cost-plus contracts to pay-for-service contracts, then SpaceX won't be able to become another Lockheed Martin. Or, alternatively, if Lockheed Martin is still around it'll have become another SpaceX and you'll be correct, in a sense.

How twisted has the military-industrial complex made our government? It won't even consider using a rocket built by an American company because old school military contractors would like to lease us rockets they bought from the Russians!

America used to have balls, we just need to remember where we left them.

In the hand's of the South African, Musk?

If you don't think that SpaceX will be another Lockheed Martin in 10 years, sucking down taxpayer money, I have a bridge I will sell you.

If the military follows in NASA's (occasionally faltering, mostly thanks to Congress) footsteps of moving away from non- or minimally-competitive cost-plus contracts to pay-for-service contracts, then SpaceX won't be able to become another Lockheed Martin. Or, alternatively, if Lockheed Martin is still around it'll have become another SpaceX and you'll be correct, in a sense.

So your contention is that NASA, as the single customer, is going to buy from more than one vendor for a product? I don't think you understand how a single buyer (captive customer) system ultimately works out.

How twisted has the military-industrial complex made our government? It won't even consider using a rocket built by an American company because old school military contractors would like to lease us rockets they bought from the Russians!

The DoD was more than willing to let SpaceX compete but the contract process for this latest one was started in 2011 before SpaceX was anyway close to being qualified to bid on them.

Makes sense. If we're going to bar any cooperation between Russian and US space programs in an official capacity, it doesn't make much sense that the NASA contractors could still conduct business with the Russian space agencies.

Also, allow me to say that Elon Musk is one hell of a man. Thanks for PayPal, making electric cars cool and sexy, privatizing the space industry, and making the space community more hospitable for private companies.

I was with you until the second paragraph. Get off his ****. He pursued this not because of some kind of altruistic support for America's policy of Russia and the Ukraine. He did it in his own interest, which shouldn't be celebrated or condemned. You know, the old "do the right thing for the wrong reasons."

To each his own. IMO, he's a pretty great guy. IYO, he's not.

Of course he doesn't do these things for free, but at the end of the day he pursues his passions into uncharted business territory. Musk almost went broke putting all of his personal millions into Tesla before the finally got a few lucky breaks and got listed on the NYSE. Teslas remain one of the only production automobiles to offer ranges above 100 miles. The Leaf comes close, but Teslas are still in a league of their own. He helped build an online secure payment platform before anyone really even knew how useful one would be. Look at how many online retailers depend on Paypal now (heck, I'd sure rather pay with Paypal than give some shady fly-by-night site my credit card number). He build a private spaceflight company from the ground up back when it wasn't even really clear how useful one would be. Now with the Cold War heating up again (or cooling down again? How does that work?), suddenly everyone is realizing how troubling it is to rely on Russia for space travel. Enter Musk again with SpaceX, a company that nobody really knew we needed until now.

I admire Musk not only because he pursues things he is passionate about and is willing to put a great deal on the line for what he believes in, but also because he's doing it with no guaranteed payoff. Sure, he's doing well and making money now, but that was never guaranteed. If he hadn't been brilliant enough to do things right with SpaceX or Tesla, we'd not be commenting on this story now.

Admire him if you will, don't if you won't, but I'd appreciate it if you left out the insults and kept the conversation constructive and focused.

America used to have balls, we just need to remember where we left them.

In the hand's of the South African, Musk?

If you don't think that SpaceX will be another Lockheed Martin in 10 years, sucking down taxpayer money, I have a bridge I will sell you.

If the military follows in NASA's (occasionally faltering, mostly thanks to Congress) footsteps of moving away from non- or minimally-competitive cost-plus contracts to pay-for-service contracts, then SpaceX won't be able to become another Lockheed Martin. Or, alternatively, if Lockheed Martin is still around it'll have become another SpaceX and you'll be correct, in a sense.

So your contention is that NASA, as the single customer, is going to buy from more than one vendor for a product? I don't think you understand how a single buyer (captive customer) system ultimately works out.

The "product" here is the capability required for a specific mission, such as "deliver X kg of supplies to the ISS". Why shouldn't the single buyer buy that capability from whichever vendor at the time can provide that service with the best combination of cost and reliability? They're the ones with all the power. The reason this doesn't work in the old regime is because the NASA contract would be for the rockets, and they would be exclusive contracts. The procurement process was broken so that the vendors had all the power, when obviously they shouldn't in a single-buyer/captive-customer situation.

Doesn't seem like the use of the RP-1 wasn't prohibited when ULA submitted its bid. The sanctions are a lucky break for SpaceX.

Did you read the same article as me?There was no bid.

There was no bid because when the process started in 2011, SpaceX was not anywhere close to being qualified.

If you have a clear second contender well on the way to having the capability you want and offering it at a third the price of the incumbent, it seems at best a little dodgy to procure seven years of capability all at once, at at most a small discount, slightly before the second contender becomes available.

*shrugs* I'm OK with this considering Lockheed-Martin and Boeing both have non compete contracts out there. I know the reasoning, doesn't change the fact that Spacex isn't being allowed in the big boy's club "because".

The development of private spaceflight companies like SpaceX over the last few years is a great step forward. But cutting international cooperation when it comes to space would be ten steps backward. It is sad that a supposed visionary like Musk tries to play that card. It is even sadder to see how many Ars readers enthusiastically jump on that bandwagon.

You know you are living in the FUTURE when comments refer to OLD SCHOOL AEROSPACE INDUSTRY!

I think it's a very calculated move and it's likely to work for a couple of reasons. First and foremost its likely to get substantial mainstream news coverage, second the case seems to have more than a little merit.

You know, say what you will about the Russians, but I enjoy it when political figures aren't afraid to do a little humorous verbal jabbing publicly (even though he's technically wrong in this instance.)

How is he wrong in this instance? We have no vehicle that can take a human crew to the ISS at this time -- that is a hard fact.

Readers may want to look into the X-33, which was part of the shuttle replacement program. Oh, and which president cancelled it.

It was canceled because the fuel tank design (which carried liquid hydrogen) repeatedly failed. NASA determined that the technology available to them at the time simply could not support what was required for the X33 SSTO.

Whatever president was sitting at the time - the basics of the design were obviously flawed - I see no problem with the president of the time, or the NASA administration, or whomever cancelling it.

Lockheed didn't get a successful test until 2009 - and that only with a scale model.

It's going to be at least twenty years, based on current SOTA, to get to the point where the composite tank will be strong enough, light enough, affordable enough, and reusable enough based on the work done on the X-33.

And this opinion is based on exactly what?

And why sell the launch site? It was land contiguous to EAFB and was useful to no one else.

Clearly there was an agenda to kill the X-33 and make sure it never saw the light of day. Make that California sun light.

Oh and the fact it was Al Gore's pet project had nothing to do with it, right?

America used to have balls, we just need to remember where we left them.

In the hand's of the South African, Musk?

If you don't think that SpaceX will be another Lockheed Martin in 10 years, sucking down taxpayer money, I have a bridge I will sell you.

If the military follows in NASA's (occasionally faltering, mostly thanks to Congress) footsteps of moving away from non- or minimally-competitive cost-plus contracts to pay-for-service contracts, then SpaceX won't be able to become another Lockheed Martin. Or, alternatively, if Lockheed Martin is still around it'll have become another SpaceX and you'll be correct, in a sense.

So your contention is that NASA, as the single customer, is going to buy from more than one vendor for a product? I don't think you understand how a single buyer (captive customer) system ultimately works out.

The "product" here is the capability required for a specific mission, such as "deliver X kg of supplies to the ISS". Why shouldn't the single buyer buy that capability from whichever vendor at the time can provide that service with the best combination of cost and reliability? They're the ones with all the power. The reason this doesn't work in the old regime is because the NASA contract would be for the rockets, and they would be exclusive contracts. The procurement process was broken so that the vendors had all the power, when obviously they shouldn't in a single-buyer/captive-customer situation.

So maybe we should rethink who it is who doesn't understand how this plays out.

The product is being developed by money provided by the US government, courtesy of the commercial cargo resupply grants. After paying to develop the service they will then "buy" the service... which will devolve into who ever has the lowest cost at that point in time, or otherwise pushes the competition out of the way.

The development of private spaceflight companies like SpaceX over the last few years is a great step forward. But cutting international cooperation when it comes to space would be ten steps backward. It is sad that a supposed visionary like Musk tries to play that card. It is even sadder to see how many Ars readers enthusiastically jump on that bandwagon.

I see where you're coming from but this shouldn't really affect cooperation much. If things work out for Musk then American flights to the ISS will be with his rockets and Russian flights will still be done with theirs.

You know, maybe this will push LockMart to finally put the RD-180 into domestic production, like they've had the license to do for years.

Nah, they'll just get the politicians in their pocket to forge another exemption.

LockMart would want money from the Congress to do that, of course. Alot will depend on how many RD-180's they have on hand - as you can't just "build" RD-180's you've never built before - and have them be successful - the Atlas 5 is the backbone of the governmental launch fleet (the Delta 4 is used for the really heavy launches for the most part - they strap 3 of them together).

Easily they could transition to the Delta 4, but you'd need time, just as you would to start making RD-180's domestically.

If LockMart doesn't have alot of RD-180's on hand - there's going to be alot of running around and waving of hands in the halls of D.C. today.

And then Russia might not deliver them anyway. Given Rogozin's comments about "actions following actions", this court case may have been enough incentive to lock out the US from using Russian facilities and/or capsules going forward. This is exactly why the US needs to maintain its own in-house tech for launching stuff - that way they're not held hostage to a foreign power for building new and better technology. Not to mention that these engines are complex enough it wouldn't be hard to engineer a "failsafe" that guarantees destruction of the launch vehicle on an outside signal. And since the affected launches in this case are almost all military, this is exactly the kind of thing top generals should be worried about - core technology manufactured by a company directly owned by a potential enemy nation. This risk is exactly why they've banned purchasing Huawei equipment for military networks.

On the other hand, this is venturing into dangerous territory. It's one thing to sue for the right to compete for government contracts, it's another thing entirely to use the courts to bludgeon your competition.

As much as I like Elon Musk, unsurprising to see that SpaceX isn't immune from stooping to this. I don't understand the need for sanctions against Russia. Is the USA the only country allowed to invade another?

In any case, engaging the Russians is a much better strategy than pressuring them. It seems to be working with Iran who have fewer common strategic interests.

You guys should spend more time listening to Science Friday on NPR.

They spoke with NASA a couple weeks ago about how *NASA* would be barred from making purchases of these same engines and also discussed alternative engines that are available.

If the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, a Federally-funded and controlled organization is legally barred by Congress from purchasing these engines, why shouldn't a private corporation receive the same treatment, especially when those corporations survive almost entirely on government, federally-funded contracts?

That's right. They shouldn't.

There should be no more of this "wah wah I'm a corporation" crap with these money-mongers getting away with whatever they please. They should be held to the same standards as the country in which they operate, especially with something so diplomatically sensitive.

This is such a big deal at NASA there is talk internally there that they may need to prevent access between the US and Russian sides of the ISS.

America used to have balls, we just need to remember where we left them.

In the hand's of the South African, Musk?

If you don't think that SpaceX will be another Lockheed Martin in 10 years, sucking down taxpayer money, I have a bridge I will sell you.

If the military follows in NASA's (occasionally faltering, mostly thanks to Congress) footsteps of moving away from non- or minimally-competitive cost-plus contracts to pay-for-service contracts, then SpaceX won't be able to become another Lockheed Martin. Or, alternatively, if Lockheed Martin is still around it'll have become another SpaceX and you'll be correct, in a sense.

So your contention is that NASA, as the single customer, is going to buy from more than one vendor for a product? I don't think you understand how a single buyer (captive customer) system ultimately works out.

The "product" here is the capability required for a specific mission, such as "deliver X kg of supplies to the ISS". Why shouldn't the single buyer buy that capability from whichever vendor at the time can provide that service with the best combination of cost and reliability? They're the ones with all the power. The reason this doesn't work in the old regime is because the NASA contract would be for the rockets, and they would be exclusive contracts. The procurement process was broken so that the vendors had all the power, when obviously they shouldn't in a single-buyer/captive-customer situation.

So maybe we should rethink who it is who doesn't understand how this plays out.

Um, you do realize the contracts that are being sued over are military, non-ISS, non-NASA flights, right? Do you really think it's a good idea to put Russian made engines in a US military vehicle right now?

The Atlas V rocket uses the Russian RP-1 powered RD-180 engines in its first stage, while the Delta IV’s first stage uses US-built cryogenic RS-68 engines (which are far less powerful but more efficient).

While the RD-180 is more powerful than the RS-68, the difference is less than the parenthetical seems to imply. The RD-180 produces 4.15 MN, while the RS-68 produces 3.37 MN, a difference of about 19%.

That 19% is enough to make some payloads impossible to get into orbit.

Which is why the Delta Heavy exists, which can carry more than any Atlas variant

On the other hand, this is venturing into dangerous territory. It's one thing to sue for the right to compete for government contracts, it's another thing entirely to use the courts to bludgeon your competition.

As much as I like Elon Musk, unsurprising to see that SpaceX isn't immune from stooping to this. I don't understand the need for sanctions against Russia. Is the USA the only country allowed to invade another?

In any case, engaging the Russians is a much better strategy than pressuring them. It seems to be working with Iran who have fewer common strategic interests.

You guys should spend more time listening to Science Friday on NPR.

They spoke with NASA a couple weeks ago about how *NASA* would be barred from making purchases of these same engines and also discussed alternative engines that are available.

If the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, a Federally-funded and controlled organization is legally barred by Congress from purchasing these engines, why shouldn't a private corporation receive the same treatment, especially when those corporations survive almost entirely on government, federally-funded contracts?

That's right. They shouldn't.

There should be no more of this "wah wah I'm a corporation" crap with these money-mongers getting away with whatever they please. They should be held to the same standards as the country in which they operate, especially with something so diplomatically sensitive.

This is such a big deal at NASA there is talk internally there that they may need to prevent access between the US and Russian sides of the ISS.

If it was a Google-paid flight to deliver a new mapping satellite, they can contract with whomever they want (and if they violate sanctions, it's a civil matter that will be discussed with the Justice department later). If it's a government contract, flying a military vehicle, then all component sourcing should absolutely be reviewed and approved on a per-component basis to ensure that all national security objectives are met in addition to following sanctions policy. If Iran was selling rocket fuel, we shouldn't include them in the competitive bid process for Air Force flights either.

On the other hand, this is venturing into dangerous territory. It's one thing to sue for the right to compete for government contracts, it's another thing entirely to use the courts to bludgeon your competition.

It sounds more like he's using the courts to merely bring the government back to doing what it should be doing ... making vendors put in bids and fight fairly over contracts instead of just handing them off to a "Good Old Boy" without giving anyone else consideration.

Didn't the gov't get busted by doing this with Haliburton in Iraq? Seems everywhere you turned Haliburton was in the oil fields, infrastructure, security ... everything... and it was suspected it was because Rumsfeld was farming all the work to them directly without bidding it out.

America used to have balls, we just need to remember where we left them.

In the hand's of the South African, Musk?

If you don't think that SpaceX will be another Lockheed Martin in 10 years, sucking down taxpayer money, I have a bridge I will sell you.

If the military follows in NASA's (occasionally faltering, mostly thanks to Congress) footsteps of moving away from non- or minimally-competitive cost-plus contracts to pay-for-service contracts, then SpaceX won't be able to become another Lockheed Martin. Or, alternatively, if Lockheed Martin is still around it'll have become another SpaceX and you'll be correct, in a sense.

So your contention is that NASA, as the single customer, is going to buy from more than one vendor for a product? I don't think you understand how a single buyer (captive customer) system ultimately works out.

The "product" here is the capability required for a specific mission, such as "deliver X kg of supplies to the ISS". Why shouldn't the single buyer buy that capability from whichever vendor at the time can provide that service with the best combination of cost and reliability? They're the ones with all the power. The reason this doesn't work in the old regime is because the NASA contract would be for the rockets, and they would be exclusive contracts. The procurement process was broken so that the vendors had all the power, when obviously they shouldn't in a single-buyer/captive-customer situation.

So maybe we should rethink who it is who doesn't understand how this plays out.

The product is being developed by money provided by the US government, courtesy of the commercial cargo resupply grants. After paying to develop the service they will then "buy" the service... which will devolve into who ever has the lowest cost at that point in time, or otherwise pushes the competition out of the way.

Once the competition is gone nothing will have changed.

Same shit... different shovel.

So, your contention is that no other company will be able to compete with SpaceX for any mission profile that NASA or the military (or private communication company, etc) wants, and will be unable to adapt before they end up folding, leaving SpaceX as the sole provider of launch capabilities.

Now this is certainly possible and would be unfortunate. The great thing is that if this were all to happen -- NASA completely switches to pay-for-service contracts and the military follows suit, with SpaceX then eating all other launch company's lunch -- then the next upstart company will have a much easier time of knocking SpaceX's legs out from under it since the procurement process has already been set up to allow competition.

I just don't find much merit in the idea that a competitive market will certainly have the same outcome as an uncompetitive one.

Also, I see single-time grants to aid development of a new competitor to be vastly superior to the traditional model of funding development completely via cost-plus contracts. The ~$300 million SpaceX received mostly funded the R&D for the Falcon 9 v1.0, but NASA didn't give them anything to go on developing the Falcon 9 v1.1, with its better engines and potential for re-use. That was driven solely by SpaceX's desire to lower their own cost structure. With a traditional R&D contract, that would also be coming out of NASA's pocketbook, except it wouldn't have happened because the contractor would have no incentive to reduce their costs. It also wouldn't have happened because the v1.0 wouldn't be done yet since they'd have no incentive to actually finish the project for the $300 million they originally received because they can always just get more. That's the nature of cost-plus.

Things will be different -- already are. The biggest obstacle to change is that the biggest buyer of such services is still operating on the old model. Not that change is impossible.

On the other hand, this is venturing into dangerous territory. It's one thing to sue for the right to compete for government contracts, it's another thing entirely to use the courts to bludgeon your competition.

I'm a bit torn on this too, but since this case was as close to whistleblowing as it was to harassing your competitor (and lets face it, the competitor we're talking about here isn't some little upstart) I'm inclined to give them a pass...this time.

Nor was the competitor having to even compete. I don't know if this qualifies as the end justify the means as it's a seedy way to do business. Nevertheless sanctions against Russia exist with good reason, so the result is legitimate.

While it might be nice to see SpaceX avoid this tactic, it is extremely common for protests to be filed on government contracts by one of the parties that lost out on the bid at both the state and federal levels.

They certainly used it strategically, but given how things are going in Russia, assuming the Russians will be fine with selling those engines in the near future is a big assumption.

Our use of the engines doesn't disadvantage them in any way; conversely, the foreign currency they receive is to their benefit. If they cut off sales of those engines, it would be purely to make a political point, not for any strategic reason.

...

...and this will stop them?

They are perfectly capable, IMHO, of cutting off sales to make a political point.

America used to have balls, we just need to remember where we left them.

In the hand's of the South African, Musk?

If you don't think that SpaceX will be another Lockheed Martin in 10 years, sucking down taxpayer money, I have a bridge I will sell you.

If the military follows in NASA's (occasionally faltering, mostly thanks to Congress) footsteps of moving away from non- or minimally-competitive cost-plus contracts to pay-for-service contracts, then SpaceX won't be able to become another Lockheed Martin. Or, alternatively, if Lockheed Martin is still around it'll have become another SpaceX and you'll be correct, in a sense.

So your contention is that NASA, as the single customer, is going to buy from more than one vendor for a product? I don't think you understand how a single buyer (captive customer) system ultimately works out.

The "product" here is the capability required for a specific mission, such as "deliver X kg of supplies to the ISS". Why shouldn't the single buyer buy that capability from whichever vendor at the time can provide that service with the best combination of cost and reliability? They're the ones with all the power. The reason this doesn't work in the old regime is because the NASA contract would be for the rockets, and they would be exclusive contracts. The procurement process was broken so that the vendors had all the power, when obviously they shouldn't in a single-buyer/captive-customer situation.

So maybe we should rethink who it is who doesn't understand how this plays out.

Um, you do realize the contracts that are being sued over are military, non-ISS, non-NASA flights, right?

Yes? That's why I said the military should switch to using the same procurement model that NASA is (slowly) switching to. Which they then disagreed with, saying it would end up the same way since NASA is going to buy from only one vendor, which I said was bollocks since they've already shown they aren't going to.

Quote:

Do you really think it's a good idea to put Russian made engines in a US military vehicle right now?

How could you have possibly gotten that from my post? I seriously have no idea.

On the other hand, this is venturing into dangerous territory. It's one thing to sue for the right to compete for government contracts, it's another thing entirely to use the courts to bludgeon your competition.

I'm a bit torn on this too, but since this case was as close to whistleblowing as it was to harassing your competitor (and lets face it, the competitor we're talking about here isn't some little upstart) I'm inclined to give them a pass...this time.

Nor was the competitor having to even compete. I don't know if this qualifies as the end justify the means as it's a seedy way to do business. Nevertheless sanctions against Russia exist with good reason, so the result is legitimate.

While it might be nice to see SpaceX avoid this tactic, it is extremely common for protests to be filed on government contracts by one of the parties that lost out on the bid at both the state and federal levels.

Oh yes, this happens to my company all the time. The lab instrumentation we sell only costs $100-$250k per unit and yet every government contract we win is immediately challenged by our competitors. Never mind that not a single challenge has ever resulted in us losing a sale (going on 50+ such challenges), they are allowed to keep challenging each and every award.